6 degrees and not a single one one in climate studies and meteorology. The ACBL employs a number of programmers to program their various systems. Doing so may indicate you are an expert programmer, but does not require being a bridge expert.

A new paper claims the vast artificial airflow created by the world’s air conditioners could be harnessed to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, by adding or retrofitting a CO2 absorber and converter to air conditioners. But critics see a few problems with the concept.

Definitely not ready for prime time as there are economies of scale and potential safety problems, in addition to technical problems making the technology affordable and easy to install.

Still, it's nice to see out of the box ideas. Speaking of out of the box ideas, remember Dennison's promise to lead the USA into the 19th century and increase coal production?

Coal consumption last year fell to 717 million tons, slightly lower than the year before. Even more alarming for the industry: Almost all domestic coal consumption is in the power sector, yet despite an increase in natural gas prices in 2017, coal’s share of power generation for the year was just 30%, the lowest on record and lower than natural gas for the second year in a row.

In promising to end the “war on coal,” Trump may not have had a firm understanding of the extent of the industry’s problems, said Rob Rappold, mayor of Beckley, W.Va.

Something that bears repeating

Quote

Trump may not have had a firm understanding of the extent of the industry’s problems

I actually didn't mention anybody dying, but now that you have brought it up, how many megawatts is a human life worth? Comparing tsunami deaths to leaking radiation is a strawman argument. Unless you got an immediately fatal dose of radiation, you won't see increased deaths for years. The deaths from radiation overexposure are going to happen many decades later for most people so comparing deaths in the short term is a waste of time.

Most energy plants don't have nuclear waste to cleanup after the plant closes. Do you understand the difference between normal industrial waste and nuclear waste? I'm waiting for you to explain the Hanford cleanup and how things are going there.

Sorry I took some time to answer but I am not very active. Very busy...

There are many types of poisonous waste. Heavy metals is one of them. Nuclear waste is another. Chemical waste will stay poisonous forever, and also some nuclear waste which includes actinides like Plutonium and Neptunium will also be radioactive practically forever. Cleaning up either is very hard.

Luckily, the processes in a nuclear power plant are not such that actinides will ever get to the outside. Even in the Fukushima accident, no measureable amount of Plutonium was released. There were some reports about Plutonium fallout, but it was quickly discovered that it was not released in 2011 but in 1945.

Also, actinide-rich nuclear waste is first of all "not a lot". For Germany, one would fit all of it easily in a large storage hall even after providing electricity for millions of people for 50 years. Second, this is not really waste. For a breeder reactor, spent fuel is a resource. Although these have not yet been built, some countries are planning this and they would allow the storage time for spent fuel to be reduced from 200,000 years to less than 500 years. Which is still long but manageable.

Quote

If it's private companies you are talking about, they can go out of business or declare bankruptcy if they don't want to pay and who do you think it going to pick up the tab? And where does that nuclear waste go? Nobody wants to store nuclear waste, not the states where the waste was created, and not states like Nevada where storage has been going on for years.

In Sweden and Finland, the companies are building or have built a repository for the long-lived nuclear waste. It is paid by the plant operators. The government regulator (Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for USA) can demand the same from the operators. Financing occurs beforehand. If the plant operator goes out of business, the repository is still financed.

Quote

Terrorists killing themselves while committing terrorist acts? Have you heard of something known as 9/11? Or countless suicide bombers who blow themselves up along with innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Terrorist infiltrating a nuclear plant and sabotaging all the safety equipment and causing an explosion? I hope you don't have a job in the nuclear power plant security business. Frankly, you've lost all credibility with your last comment.

You seem to have no idea of the workings of a nuclear power plant. Flying a plane into a modern nuclear power plant would create an explosion, and black scorch marks on the wall. And then what? How does that help the terrorist cause, making stains on the wall? They would be like the suicide squad from Life of Brian...

Sabotaging all the safety equipment SOUNDS like a nice idea, but again, no chance. The plants are designed to have many levels of security which cannot all be destroyed at the same time. It takes too long and once you have started, there will be an alarm and you will have special forces hunting you down. Remember Fukushima: After the tsunami, due to bad design not only offsite power and emergency diesel generators were offline, but also the batteries. NOTHING was working. Still it took about one day until there was a nuclear meltdown.

Now think about terrorist's chances to survive that long being hunted by special forces.

Quote

Nobody is talking about weapons grade material, and I don't know why you are deflecting by talking about enrichment. Just the act of blowing up a nuclear plant leads to widespread radiation fallout (see Chernobyl, see Fukushima, etc).

And how would you try to blow up a nuclear power plant? You would need an atomic bomb and if you had that, no need to try to enter the plant...
In fact I'm not sure if a nuke would really be able to blow up the plant. In case of a threat of nuclear war, inside a nuclear plant is probably the safest place on the planet.

Quote

If the plant is close to a major population center, huge numbers of people are going to be forced to permanently evacuate. And if terrorists steal nuclear material, they can explode a dirty bomb. No enrichment necessary, no weapons grade material required. It won't create nearly as much damage as a nuclear bomb, but large areas will still be rendered uninhabitable.

For that you don't need to go into the plant. After all, Uranium Oxide can be found in the ground if you know where to look. In fact you can buy it online.
Spent fuel is much more radioactive, but stealing that is also more tricky. It's kept under metres of water for good reason. Drain the water and you cannot get near it.

Quote

I am actually not a complete opponent of nuclear power, but there are some crucial safety issues that need to be addressed before I would favor any expansion.

There are safety issues, but they are being dealt with. And they are not the ones you think they are. One major safety issue for nuclear power plants are extreme natural hazards, like the tsunami in Japan. New designs deal systematically with these hazards and old plants are being refitted, for example in Europe there was a stress test for all plants.

Seems like other governmental "5 year plans" likely to lead to strife, struggle and ruin. At least economic plans deal with a measurable commodity and not an imaginary metric that exists only in computer models that are based on a rhetorical reality.

Seems like other governmental "5 year plans" likely to lead to strife, struggle and ruin. At least economic plans deal with a measurable commodity and not an imaginary metric that exists only in computer models that are based on a rhetorical reality.

Or just like Kennedy's crazy plan to send humans to the moon by the end of the decade. What a ridiculous idea that has no chance to succeed Really, where do these people get there ideas

There are many types of poisonous waste. Heavy metals is one of them. Nuclear waste is another. Chemical waste will stay poisonous forever, and also some nuclear waste which includes actinides like Plutonium and Neptunium will also be radioactive practically forever. Cleaning up either is very hard. Luckily, the processes in a nuclear power plant are not such that actinides will ever get to the outside. Even in the Fukushima accident, no measureable amount of Plutonium was released. There were some reports about Plutonium fallout, but it was quickly discovered that it was not released in 2011 but in 1945.

Also, actinide-rich nuclear waste is first of all "not a lot". For Germany, one would fit all of it easily in a large storage hall even after providing electricity for millions of people for 50 years. Second, this is not really waste. For a breeder reactor, spent fuel is a resource. Although these have not yet been built, some countries are planning this and they would allow the storage time for spent fuel to be reduced from 200,000 years to less than 500 years. Which is still long but manageable.

You seem to be hung up on plutonium radiation. 300000 people were displaced in Chernobyl and 160000 people were displaced in Fukushima. I'm sure they are very relieved to know that they weren't bombarded with plutonium.

Gerben42, on 2019-May-17, 13:45, said:

In Sweden and Finland, the companies are building or have built a repository for the long-lived nuclear waste. It is paid by the plant operators. The government regulator (Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for USA) can demand the same from the operators. Financing occurs beforehand. If the plant operator goes out of business, the repository is still financed.

That sounds pretty unamerican to make companies accountable for future public expenses. I'm sure their lobbyists are working overtime to minimize any payments. I don't want to give them any ideas, but a few million dollars to the Dennison presidential campaign can give an unbelievable return on their money. Better yet, if they can help obstruct justice it won't even cost money.

Gerben42, on 2019-May-17, 13:45, said:

You seem to have no idea of the workings of a nuclear power plant. Flying a plane into a modern nuclear power plant would create an explosion, and black scorch marks on the wall. And then what? How does that help the terrorist cause, making stains on the wall? They would be like the suicide squad from Life of Brian...

Sabotaging all the safety equipment SOUNDS like a nice idea, but again, no chance. The plants are designed to have many levels of security which cannot all be destroyed at the same time. It takes too long and once you have started, there will be an alarm and you will have special forces hunting you down. Remember Fukushima: After the tsunami, due to bad design not only offsite power and emergency diesel generators were offline, but also the batteries. NOTHING was working. Still it took about one day until there was a nuclear meltdown.

Now think about terrorist's chances to survive that long being hunted by special forces.

You seem to be obsessed with terrorists flying planes into a nuclear power plant. Have you been watching a good disaster movie that you would like to share?

Special forces? Have you been watching reruns of 24 like Cheney??? So security systems are destroyed, cooling systems are damaged beyond repair, power supplies and generators are all taken out. Now's the time to make your money. What do you do now? No use killing the terrorists to stop the damage because the damage has already been done. You can assume that after sabotaging the plant, the terrorists climb into a plane or helicopter and crash into the plant and leave black scorch marks.

Gerben42, on 2019-May-17, 13:45, said:

And how would you try to blow up a nuclear power plant? You would need an atomic bomb and if you had that, no need to try to enter the plant... In fact I'm not sure if a nuke would really be able to blow up the plant. In case of a threat of nuclear war, inside a nuclear plant is probably the safest place on the planet.

You seem to have lost your train of thought. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. No atomic bombs are necessary.

Gerben42, on 2019-May-17, 13:45, said:

For that you don't need to go into the plant. After all, Uranium Oxide can be found in the ground if you know where to look. In fact you can buy it online. Spent fuel is much more radioactive, but stealing that is also more tricky. It's kept under metres of water for good reason. Drain the water and you cannot get near it.

There are safety issues, but they are being dealt with. And they are not the ones you think they are. One major safety issue for nuclear power plants are extreme natural hazards, like the tsunami in Japan. New designs deal systematically with these hazards and old plants are being refitted, for example in Europe there was a stress test for all plants.

So you are proposing that terrorists can open a uranium mine, spend millions of dollars in labor and equipment, take the ore and refine it in a laboratory, etc.??? OK, sure, why not Or they can just steal some.

Perfectly safe plants??? Did you ever see Jurassic Park when Ian Malcolm talks about Chaos theory? Maybe not. Oh well, just keep your blinders on and keep on trucking. You might want to watch some episodes of Engineering Catastrophes to see some engineering projects that didn't go as expected.

As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, "If it’s not one thing, it’s another!"